ENEMY OF THE STATE PART ONE: THE TRAITOR

Edward Snowden is no criminal. That is, according to the Constitution of the United States, also referred to as the Supreme Law of the Land. By terms laid out in the Constitution, Edward Snowden did not commit treason against the government of the United States. In Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, it is said that treason “shall consist only in levying War against them [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Did Snowden declare war on the U.S.? Did he head over to an enemy country with gun in hand as he took up arms against the U.S.? No and no. What he did goes beyond the Constitution’s definition of treason, for he did not aid enemies in acts of war but rather in his revelation of thousands of documents he stole and handed over to three journalists – Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, and Barton Gellman. The Federalist Papers, another set of documents of great importance to the United States, go a bit further with their definition of treason, saying “…treason is a crime leveled at the immediate being of the society when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender…” This definition takes into account not only whether one is waging war against the United States in some capacity in order to convict one of treason, but also the impact that the person’s actions have upon American society. In this case, the finger is pointed a bit more at Snowden, for the information he revealed affected most if not all Americans. Despite what the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers say about treason, are there not other ways to define a criminal, a traitor, an enemy? Snowden, even if his impulsive decision does not make him an enemy of the state or a man guilty of treason, has proved himself to rather be an enemy of the people. He caused unrest around the world, and exposed the United States’ method of national security that goes against its own Bill of Rights. But did he offer an alternative to protecting the nation from the terrorist threat? No, he did not. Did he consider how other nations deal with suspicion? Did he consider the alternative to the U.S.’s method of national security, or imagine getting followed around by government thugs, living constantly in fear – the method used in too many countries? No, he did not. He failed to see this, and proceeded to put the people he claimed to be protecting at rest. Snowden: enemy of the state? Nope. Snowden: enemy of the people? Check.